NCclimber 0 #201 May 1, 2007 QuoteThe 911 comission reports concluded that Bin Laden did pursue co operation with Iraq but nothing ever came of it. There was no evidence othehrwise before the invasion and there is none now. That's my understanding, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #202 May 1, 2007 >But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! A lot of right-wingers still believe there was, and now we have a better idea of why. From Tenet's book: --------------------------------------------- The Iraq-al-Qa’ida controversy continued, even after Saddam was long gone from power. Once U.S. forces reached Baghdad, they discovered—stacked where they could easily find them—purported Iraqi intelligence services documents that showed much tighter links between Saddam and Zarqawi and Saddam and al-Qa’ida. CIA analysts worked with the U.S. Secret Service to have the paper and ink checked and tried to verify the names and information in the documents. Time and again, documents that were supposedly produced in the early 1990s turned out to be forgeries. CIA officers interviewed Iraqi intelligence officers in Baghdad who also discounted the authenticity of the documents. It was obvious that someone was trying to mislead us. But these raw, unevaluated documents that painted a more nefarious picture of Iraq and al-Qa’ida continued to show up in the hands of senior administration officials without having gone through normal intelligence channels. ---------------------------------------------- A lot of people have been played for fools - and not just the right wingers who desperately needed to justify a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #203 May 1, 2007 QuoteA lot of people have been played for fools - and not just the right wingers who desperately needed to justify a war. According to some people, anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should be considered a liar... plain and simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #204 May 1, 2007 >anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #205 May 1, 2007 Quote>anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #206 May 1, 2007 QuoteQuote>anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? Cheney mentioned it as recently as 2006.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #207 May 1, 2007 Quote>anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. What if they quoted an anecdotal story as hard truth without ANY actual evidence. What would you call them?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #208 May 1, 2007 >What would you call them? Non-credible. Fooled you once - shame on them. Fooled you twice - shame on you. Fooled you 147 times? You must still be a Bush supporter! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #209 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? I don't know... maybe it's because the Cheney statements that you presented as lies were made in 2001. In my book, someone's ability (or lack of ability) to own up to being wrong says a lot about their character. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #210 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? I don't know... maybe it's because the Cheney statements that you presented as lies were made in 2001. In my book, someone's ability (or lack of ability) to own up to being wrong says a lot about their character. Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001. US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #211 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >anyone who made claims based on this bad information, should >be considered a liar... plain and simple. I'd say they were liars only if they suspected the information was bad - and used it anyway. Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? I don't know... maybe it's because the Cheney statements that you presented as lies were made in 2001. In my book, someone's ability (or lack of ability) to own up to being wrong says a lot about their character. Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001. US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague. Help Someone make the SPINNING STOP!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #212 May 2, 2007 Quote Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001.[/REPLY] Would that somehow prove his 2001 statements about it were lies? Quote US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague. More unprovable assumptions on your part? How uncharacteristic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #213 May 2, 2007 When you stop trying to make the lying VP look like George Washington the pain will probably go away.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #214 May 2, 2007 Quote When you stop trying to make the lying VP look like George Washington the pain will probably go away. Wow. Another lie by kallend. It seems you're not above telling blatant lies, if it serves to divert the conversation. Tsk, Tsk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #215 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001.[/REPLY] Would that somehow prove his 2001 statements about it were lies? Continuing to repeat an untruth for years after it has been shown that there is no evidence for it - what do YOU call it? (It DID NOT stop in 2001). CHENEY DID NOT CONCEDE THAT THE STORY WAS UNTRUE UNTIL MARCH 2006, and even then it was a half-hearted concession. 2006 is long after the absence of evidence became public knowledge. Quote US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague. More unprovable assumptions on your part? How uncharacteristic. Well, the 9/11 Commission said so - maybe that's not good enough for you. It may have taken Principia Mathematica (Russell and Whitehead) some 300 pages to conclude that 1+1=2, but to most of us it is self evident.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #216 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote When you stop trying to make the lying VP look like George Washington the pain will probably go away. Wow. Another lie by kallend. It seems you're not above telling blatant lies, if it serves to divert the conversation. Tsk, Tsk Are you calling me a liar?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #217 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001.[/REPLY] Would that somehow prove his 2001 statements about it were lies? Continuing to repeat an untruth for years after it has been shown that there is no evidence for it - what do YOU call it? (It DID NOT stop in 2001). CHENEY DID NOT CONCEDE THAT THE STORY WAS UNTRUE UNTIL MARCH 2006, and even then it was a half-hearted concession. 2006 is long after the absence of evidence became public knowledge. Whether or not Cheney repeated those claims after they were discredited has no bearing on whether or not the 2001 statements were lies (of course). What is so hard for you to grasp about this? It seems so simple. Quote Quote Quote US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague. More unprovable assumptions on your part? How uncharacteristic. Well, the 9/11 Commission said so - maybe that's not good enough for you. It may have taken Principia Mathematica (Russell and Whitehead) some 300 pages to conclude that 1+1=2, but to most of us it is self evident. Where in the 9/11 Commission's report is it stated "US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #218 May 2, 2007 If we're looking for liars, look no furtherThe relevant clip is about midway through the video. The rest of it is just some nice, precise, related non-journalism from NC's favorite non-journalisthttp://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-shrub-lies.mov Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #219 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote When you stop trying to make the lying VP look like George Washington the pain will probably go away. Wow. Another lie by kallend. It seems you're not above telling blatant lies, if it serves to divert the conversation. Tsk, Tsk Are you calling me a liar? Does the shoe fit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #220 May 2, 2007 1 + 1 = 2 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #221 May 2, 2007 Quote1 + 1 = 2 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Pretty basic stuff.... and completely irrelevent to the bullshit you're shoveling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #222 May 2, 2007 Quote If we're looking for liars, look no furtherThe relevant clip is about midway through the video. The rest of it is just some nice, precise, related non-journalism from NC's favorite non-journalisthttp://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-shrub-lies.mov ROFL, I rest my case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #223 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote If we're looking for liars, look no furtherThe relevant clip is about midway through the video. The rest of it is just some nice, precise, related non-journalism from NC's favorite non-journalisthttp://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-shrub-lies.mov ROFL, I rest my case. Smart move. You seem to be sinking fast. Sadly, I don't think you realize this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #224 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote If we're looking for liars, look no furtherThe relevant clip is about midway through the video. The rest of it is just some nice, precise, related non-journalism from NC's favorite non-journalisthttp://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-shrub-lies.mov ROFL, I rest my case. Smart move. You seem to be sinking fast. Sadly, I don't think you realize this. You remind me of the black knight... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #225 May 2, 2007 Same old.. same old. When you're clearly in the wrong, you resort to petty insults. Good show old man. You state Cheney was lying about a meeting in Prague between Iraqis and Atta and then post some statements made by Cheney in 2001 as supporting evidence. I call bullshit on it and you go into spin mode. Here it is, plain and simple - Show ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Cheney was lying about that meeting (instead of relying information later proven wrong), when he mentioned it back in 2001 and I'll admit you were right and I was wrong. As I see it, your assertion was complete bullshit and you've done nothing to support it. Just to be clear about a couple of things: I never said Cheney hasn't lied to the public, only that there is nothing to prove he was lying in 2001 when he spoke about Iraqi/Atta meeting. And the story of alleged meeting has been thoroughly discredited. It's your move. Maybe you'll surprise me and man up. Maybe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
